What happens when you die?

When the other folders just won't do!

Moderators: NickThorpe, Darran@Retro Gamer

User avatar
r0jaws
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by r0jaws » Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:05 pm

confused, basically, everything you have stated on here can be easily disproved within minutes, but I am not going to spend the next few days arguing back and forward with someone who believes that magic created the universe, because that is basically what you, and all religions say.

I do not respect religious belief, and TBH I think we should all give religion a lot less respect. Only human beings have rights, and deserve respect, religions and beliefs do not. I know that religion creates division, hatred and violence, and whilst human beings can manage that without a religion, it gives them a very good reason to be sh1tty to each other. I am not saying that being an atheist is better, but it is once less reason to act like a kn0b.

Frankly, death will be a relief for everyone, the only problem is that once you're dead, that's it. You won't know if you were right or not, because your consciousness has gone. You won't be able to regret a life wasted following nonsensical ritual and beliefs that withheld your true potential and stifled your growth as a person.
The only hope is that you are not a victim of one of these religious pr1cks who wants to take unbelievers with them by flying into a building. Murder is the ultimate crime, as with only one brief spark of consciousness, to have it snuffed out by some delusion god-head is the worst possible thing that could happen.
If a theist wants to kill themselves for their God, I just wish they would leave the rest of us out of getting involved in their spiritual journey.

User avatar
r0jaws
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by r0jaws » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:55 pm

Actually, I am going to counter these points because Tbh I think it is important to challenge the pseudo-science being touted here...
c0nfu53d wrote: Radiometric Dating....

The Problem with Radioisometric dating is that you have presume the following:

1.The initial conditions of the rock must be known.
2.The amount of radioactive element has not been altered by any other process.
3.The half-life has remained constant since the rock was formed.

Scientists have no idea of the above info. Think of it like this:

Hourglass Analogy

You walk into a room and observe an hourglass with sand at the top and sand at the bottom. You can easily calculate how long the hourglass has been running by finding the speed at which the sand is falling and measuring the amount of sand left at the top. Using some pretty simple calculations we can figure out the initial time the hourglass was turned over. This is basically how people figure out how old rocks are.

However…

1.Initial conditions – Was there any sand at the bottom when the hourglass was turned over??? I’m not quite sure, I was not in the room at the beginning. That is a big assumption to make.

2.Other processes – Was there any sand taken out or added? I’m not sure about that one either. Again I was not there for the whole process. Another big-time assumption.

3.Constant rate – Has the sand always been falling at a constant rate? Once again, I was not there to see if the speed was altered at all. A third huge assumption.

Since we did not know the initial conditions and must make large assumptions that critically affect our results, the accuracy of our results are drastically tainted! This is the difference between historical and evidential science – our presuppositions govern our results throughout historical science.

All macro-evolutionists will not be able to give one solid proof for what they call is “fact.” Most will use radiometric dating as a proof of the ages of the fossil record.

http://mrayton.wordpress.com/2011/09/20 ... ic-dating/
If you follow the link I provided, it takes the "analogy" of the hourglass and shows it as a gross over-simplification. I also take issue with the link you have provided quoting mrayton as the author. I agree with him in that we should all be critical thinkers, but that is it. His main argument against radiometric dating is based around the fact that he doesn't understand it fully, and the closest he can come to understanding it is to come up with an hourglass "analogy".
He also makes the mistake, pounced upon by theists as some sort of trump card, that we can't know exact ages, and these results can span millions of years. Considering that the universe is Billions of years old in itself, the brackets are actually quite small, and are of use in trying to determine a chronology on a large scale. However, no matter what the results are, they still show that the universe is older than 6000 years, by an enormous magnitude.
c0nfu53d wrote:In addition to the dating issue the fossil record has huge issues.

If we evolved from one type of animal to another (macro evolution), why heve there been no inbetween fossils found? Darwin himself required this to be found - it has not been.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled"

-N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University

Plenty of extra info and quotes including references here http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/probl ... record.htm
r0jaws wrote:Also Shoe Fossil, have a look HERE for an explanation.
Couldn't find anything about orbs in fossilised rock.
I appologise for using a paranormal website. Not the best souce of info but sometimes science website wont carry these type of articals because they dont believe them to be science.
I agree that the fossil record is incomplete, but that is not surprising at all considering the conditions required to create a fossil, and also the fact that we live on a geologically and meterologically dynamic planet which regularly smashes, grinds, weathers and melts it's rocks.
That doesn't mean that fossils should be discounted as evidence supporting evolution. They are part of the puzzle, used alongside cladistic and molecular sequencing to support the theory.
used on their own, it would be very difficult to say that evolution is a fact, but supported with other evidence it becomes overwhelmingly compelling.
I would also ask you, considering that you say that fossilisation can occur so quickly, and that God created everything 6000 years ago, where are the fossils of modern creatures to prove that? I would love to see a fossil of a dog turn up on the jurrassic coast of scarborough. i'll be up there at the end of the month on holiday, I'll have a look for you. :wink:
c0nfu53d wrote:Evolutionist make stuff up far more than creationists

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings

The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist

While im sure some creationists unfairly bend truth on occasions (not all the claims on Haekels work is compleatly true) I've never heard of one actully lie and then try to get it published as fact.
I'm sorry but the highlighted part here made me laugh out loud. You take 2 examples of two dishonest men who were disproved and disgraced by the scientific community and suggest that somehow the outright fabrications of the "story" of creation is somehow more noble? I would suggest that theists, creationists, make up far more stuff than any other section of humanity.
What scientific evidence has any creationist ever put forward that suggests that evolution is wrong, that all creatures were magic'd into existence by god in their current form 6000 years ago. which papers and studies have been released? have they been tested scientifically?
c0nfu53d wrote:
r0jaws wrote:So much "common sense" that it is certain that morality predates christianity by many many thousands of years. You don't have to be a Christian to know that murder, theft and rape are wrong.
Yes Humans have built in moral standards but how ofter do they ignore them? The point I was trying to make was simply what I said - follow the bibles guidences for morallity and socitey would not be in the state it is in. Plus If god created the earth and humans the morality stems from the moment of creation.
Let's ask a Catholic priest about ignoring moral standards shall we?
c0nfu53d wrote:
r0jaws wrote:Because much of the established knowledge was hard won by the generations of human beings who came before who learned not to do dangerous things, or to eat the wrong mushroom, or to wash your hands after touching something icky. Also, if God really wanted to tell us about germs, why not just say, "there are germs, and they will give you the squits, so wash yourselves". And why only those two instances of possible infection, why not a warning about malaria? Or tuberculosis, or small pox?
Again you missed my point. I was talking about dead bodies or people with desiese.We didn't to wash your hands after touching something icky" as we only started to do this medicaly 100 years ago. The laws in Leviticus game the isrealites knowlege the couldn't have had by there own learning. The most advanced medical knowledge at the time was from the Egyptians who were giving human and animal crap as medicine.
Again, any tribe of Homo erectus who lived in a hot country and were not careful about how they handle their dead, is likely to have not lasted very long. Human beings have a long tradition of oral history, and of passing information down through the generations which gets mixed up in superstition. Again, If the Bible provided advanced medical knowledge, where are the references to covering your mouth when you sneeze or cough to prevent spread of disease, they had alcohol, so why no hints about using it to sterilize wounds? Mouldy bread and penicillin? boiling water to kill germs?
c0nfu53d wrote:
r0jaws wrote:We didn't evolve from rocks. We evolved over billions of years, in a series of long and complex stages, in a mindbogglingly complex way. Complexity, given time, is a natural process.
Evolution states lava cooled into a rock. It rained on the rock for millions of years and created what I believe scientists call primordial soup from which produced Amino Acids which over time produced life. This has been questioned with Polonium Haloes found in Cheap plastic horrible as the Polonium Haloes can't form in heat. Although to be fair I should point out that there needs to be more research on this before we take it as fact as he have been refuted by scientists because the researcher that found them, Robert Gentry, didn't follow accepted geologic reporting practice and procedures.
We had to evolve from something, and that is molecules. Some of which make up rocks, but it wasn't rock that we evolved out of. What is awesome is that everything in the universe came from the explosions of Stars, every element in existence started off in the heart of a star. In that way we all ultimately evolved out of Stars, which is much cooler.
c0nfu53d wrote:
r0jaws wrote:The fact that we share DNA with other animals proves that we share a common ancestor, not a designer.
If you was creating life, and one thing worked in one type of animal would you not reuse that DNA? If we have a common ancestor what is it? And why do we not have any fossils from inbetween?


There are 6 Types of Evolution only 1 has been proven.

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.


- Of the above supposed 6 types of Evolution, only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has ever been observed.

- The other 5 types of Evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution.

- The other 5 types of Evolution are all theoretical, and have never been observed.

- They cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, and do not therefore fall under the strict definition of a science.
Your "strict" definition of science is flawed. You do not have to reproduce something in a lab for it to qualify as science, theoretical science is perfectly acceptable in all areas as long as it is tested against other theorems and is available for scrutiny.

Dna, again, you are quite right in that if it works in one creature, then why not use it in another. Nature does this, you don't need god sitting there sticking the molecular sequence together.
We've already covered fossils, and we do have "inbetween" fossils for some species, just not all of them, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. However, cetaceans, ie whales and dolphins have an excellent fossil record because of the conditions in which they live, and their size, makes them ideal fossilisation candidates.
Evolutionary history does not just rely on fossils to make it's point, there are many techniques, used together, that make evolution the best theory we have so far for how things have come to be as they are today.
It's certainly a lot more worthy than the idea of God pulling everything out of a giant hat.

User avatar
Matt_B
Posts: 5080
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:30 am
Location: 5 minutes from the beach, 30 seconds from the pub

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by Matt_B » Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:31 am

Bloody hell. Is this thing still going?

Anyway, I'll put you all out of your misery. When you die, you get a letter from Princess Peach with five more lives.

There, easy. :P

User avatar
silvergunner
Posts: 1908
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:09 pm
Location: Stockton

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by silvergunner » Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:37 am

To answer the 5 loafs and 2 fish quandary. He faked it, he had more up his sleeves the sneaky little man :lol:

User avatar
Matt_B
Posts: 5080
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:30 am
Location: 5 minutes from the beach, 30 seconds from the pub

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by Matt_B » Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:42 am

silvergunner wrote:To answer the 5 loafs and 2 fish quandary. He faked it, he had more up his sleeves the sneaky little man :lol:
Either that, or the size of the crowd was greatly exaggerated.

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26326
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by Antiriad2097 » Thu Jul 10, 2014 5:23 pm

:lol: This thread is comedy gold. Its amazing the things some people will believe, and the fact parties on both sides think the other is being silly is even funnier.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

User avatar
HalcyonDaze00
Posts: 4621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:20 pm

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by HalcyonDaze00 » Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:51 pm

God grief! magnificent lunacy from both sides :lol:

User avatar
crusto
Posts: 5586
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:18 am
Location: Birmingham

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by crusto » Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:07 pm

Eat your nans (fossilised) Arab cakes
Image

Eat your nans pants

User avatar
The Hardest of All Freds
Posts: 1746
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:20 pm

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by The Hardest of All Freds » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:00 pm

Maybe Jeebus made veeery weak fish soup with croutons.
Going Solo...................

User avatar
dste
Posts: 7014
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Northumberland

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by dste » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:13 pm

What happens when you die?

Well you sh*t and p*ss yourself and then they bury or burn you.
Game Over Yeah - My Blog
Game Over Yeah - Facebook
Megamixer wrote:I never find it relaxing! Trying to hold onto my rings and not get hit by things is stressful!

pratty
Posts: 5166
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:13 pm

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by pratty » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Antiriad2097 wrote::lol: This thread is comedy gold. Its amazing the things some people will believe, and the fact parties on both sides think the other is being silly is even funnier.
HalcyonDaze00 wrote:God grief! magnificent lunacy from both sides :lol:
I assume you're referring to Confused and the people debating him, if so where is the anti-Christian lunacy in this thread? If Confused is wrong to believe what he believes, then how can people who believe the opposite also be wrong? Or do you not beleive in either creationism or evolution?

Or were you refering to me? All I gave was an alternate interpretation of the Bible, the idea that people encoded their beliefs (not mine) into the Bible, hadly that far-fetched an idea given how much metaphor and allegory there is in literature. People back then put a lot of stock in astrology, the term lunacy itself derives from the belief that people's mental state was affected by lunar activity.
Pratty's trade list, updated (October 2018)!
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=54823

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26326
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by Antiriad2097 » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:28 pm

Oh, I'm in no doubt that bits of the bible are based on historical fact, much like any piece of literature. Good books are usually those that make themselves believable. But there's a distinct blurring of fact from fiction for some readers.

Personally, if I was going to believe in gods I'd choose some more interesting ones than the Christian variety.

But don't mind me, I'm about to go on mermaid watch duty.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

pratty
Posts: 5166
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:13 pm

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by pratty » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:38 pm

Antiriad2097 wrote:Oh, I'm in no doubt that bits of the bible are based on historical fact, much like any piece of literature. Good books are usually those that make themselves believable. But there's a distinct blurring of fact from fiction for some readers.

Personally, if I was going to believe in gods I'd choose some more interesting ones than the Christian variety.

But don't mind me, I'm about to go on mermaid watch duty.
I would agree the Bible is probably a mix of fact and fiction, so what are the amazing things the non-christians in this thread are believing?
Pratty's trade list, updated (October 2018)!
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=54823

User avatar
felgekarp
Posts: 9347
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 3:47 pm
Location: Earth 3

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by felgekarp » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:58 pm

My body gets donated to medical science and the world becomes a better place because of it.
Splink!

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26326
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Re: What happens when you die?

Post by Antiriad2097 » Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:14 pm

pratty wrote:
Antiriad2097 wrote:Oh, I'm in no doubt that bits of the bible are based on historical fact, much like any piece of literature. Good books are usually those that make themselves believable. But there's a distinct blurring of fact from fiction for some readers.

Personally, if I was going to believe in gods I'd choose some more interesting ones than the Christian variety.

But don't mind me, I'm about to go on mermaid watch duty.
I would agree the Bible is probably a mix of fact and fiction, so what are the amazing things the non-christians in this thread are believing?
I have no idea. It just amused me that both sides think the other is being silly and no amount of arguing or 'proof' will change that, since it's based on a fundamental belief of the individual.

It would be nice to find some gods I believed in, but the rational part of my brain hasn't allowed that in my life since I was about 4, and I suspect that isn't likely to change. It would be nice to have someone else to blame/turn to for comfort, but at the moment I have to accept that stuff happens, I have little or no control over it, and ultimately the universe doesn't care since I'm insignificant. I don't really have a problem with that, but religious people have this idealism about them that everything is somehow going to turn out great. On the other hand, I'd probably be destined for whatever hell exists. Hopefully my gods would be into the bad stuff from my life and it'll be one big party.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest